The proposal of introducing an All India Judicial
Service (AIJS) on the lines of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and
Indian Police Service (IPS) was under active consideration of the government
few years back. This measure was long overdue and has been hanging fire for
over five decades now. As of now, while most government departments have all
India service recruits, selected after a competitive examination by the Union
Public Service Commission (UPSC) every year, the judiciary is the only set up that
does not have a national-leval selection process of its own to attract the best
possible talent.

Who supported the idea?

The idea of having an AIJS is not new.

TheLaw
Commissionhas thrice - in
its 1st, 8th and 116th reports - called for such a service.

TheSupreme
Courtfirst in 1991 and
then in theall-India judges
case (1992)had
endorsed the creation of an AIJS.

In its15th
report, the Parliamentary Standing Committeeon law and justice too recommended for its
establishment and directed the Union Law Ministry to take immediate
steps.

Thefirst
National Judicial Pay Commissionand the National Advisory Council to the Centre have also supported
the proposal.

Over and above,Article 312 of the Constitutionexplicitly provides for the creation of a
national level judicial service.

But in spite of all this, the proposal could not get far in
and mere opposition by some state governments and high courts to the reform
gave a lame excuse to successive governments at the Centre to sleep over the
matter.

Why we
need this AIJS ?

In the absence of a body like AIJS, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the required judge strength at all
levels of courts. For example, against a requirement of 75,000 judicial
officers, the sanctioned strength of judges in subordinate courts, where we
have the maximum backlog of cases, remains just around 17,151. (figures r of
2013 ..just to get u an idea ).

Similarly, the Supreme Court in October last year
had only 24 judges (2013), including the chief justice and seven vacancies were
to be filled to maintain the full strength of 31.

This means that15-20 per cent of the courts, where the aggrieved go for justice, are
headless. Consequently, the available judges are unable to clear the huge
backlog of over 30 million cases, leave alone handle new ones.

What
are the MERITS ?

If implemented in letter and spirit, the scheme
will have its own distinct advantages.

Primarily, the recruitment of judges right from the
entry level will be handled by an independent and impartial agency like
the UPSC through an open competition therebyensuring fair selection of
incumbents.

It would naturally helpattract bright and capable young law
graduates to the judiciary, who
otherwise prefer immediate remunerative employment in the government and
the private sector.

For thesubordinate judicial officersit would ensure equitable service conditions
besides providing them with a wider field to probe their mettle. As
of now, thesubordinate
judges are recruited from a pool of less successful lawyerseventually become judges in higher courts, as
established lawyers are rarely willing to give up their lucrative practice
to join the bench.

In this scheme of things, the measure ofuniformity in standards for selectionwill improve thequality of personnel in different
high courts, as about
one-third of judges come there on promotion from the subordinate
courts.

Similarly, judges of the Supreme Court are drawn from
the respective high courts. In this process only persons of proven
competence will preside over the benches of superior courts, therebyminimizing the scope of partiality, arbitrariness
and aberrations in judicial selection.

Simultaneously, the quality of dispensation of justice
will also improve considerably right from the top to the bottom, as it
essentially depends upon the quality of judges recruited.

What are the Demerits !!

A district judge coming from a different linguistic
region will face a problem of language in assessing and tackling the
critical legal and other issues.

Several states have used powers under CrPC
and CPC to declare that the local language would be used in lower courts
even for writing orders, a person say selected from Tamil Nadu may find it
difficult to hold proceedings in states like Uttar Pradesh and
Bihar.

An all India service may hamper the career
progression of state judicial services officers.

What present government says ?

"... divergence of opinion among the state
governments and the high courts on constitution of All India Judicial Services
still persists," Law Minister D V Sadananda Gowda had informed the Rajya
Sabha in a question asked !

Moral of the Story !!!

while most government departments have
all-India service recruits, selected after the all-India competitive
examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) every year,
judiciary is perhaps the only set-up that doesn't have an all-India selection
process.

The reform would help considerably in toning up
the judicial administration by throwing open appointments to talented persons
across the country. In addition, the objective of introducing an outside
element in high court benches can be achieved better and more smoothly because
a member of an all-India judicial service will have no mental block about
interstate transfers. It will enrich their experience and make them better
judges. At present judges of subordinate judiciary remain only in one state
where they are appointed to work.